Middle East: Security

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

May we have short questions and speedy answers? I am going to have to cut this off, as the House will be sitting late into the morning and I have concerns. I do, however, want to get as many people as possible in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

There are many of us who should take tips about Twitter. The main point is that it was in response to a specific threat that the United States took an action. The hon. Gentleman can disagree on whether it should have done that, but after that action has taken place there is a duty on all of us to ensure that that single event does not lead to an escalation. The White House and the US Administration are on the same page; they are also keen to de-escalate the situation. The challenge for this Government, the Germans, the French and our allies is to ensure we convert those wishes of not wanting to escalate into action. That is what we are going to be doing over the next days and weeks.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say to those Members who did not get called that we do have a list of them and I would expect them to be taken very early in the next statement or next questions?

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Quite a few colleagues in the House have served in the British Army of the Rhine—I served there three times. When we, as conventional forces, practised deploying against an enemy, we were much sustained by the knowledge that there was a nuclear back-up in our armoury. That raised our morale. We thought that people would not dare attack us when we had a nuclear device in our hand. It would be mad to get rid of it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. To help Members, I will be aiming for 10 minutes each from Back Benchers.

[Dr Lewis]

I will endeavour to finish quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was right to think in those terms when he wore that uniform. What is more, hon. Members on both sides of the House, in very large numbers, think in similar terms.

To bring my remarks speedily to a conclusion, I will draw out five lessons that have impressed themselves on me in such debates over the past 35 years, since we replaced the first-generation Polaris submarine fleet with the second-generation Vanguard submarine fleet.

The first lesson is that the concepts of unilateralism and multilateralism are mutually incompatible. One requires the unconditional abandonment of our nuclear weapons and nuclear alliances, whereas the other would consider nuclear renunciation only if our potential enemies carry it out at the same time.

The second lesson is that a nuclear-free world is not necessarily a more peaceful world. Abolition of the nuclear balance of terror would be a curse and not a blessing if it made the world once again safe for all-out conventional conflict between the superpowers. In military terms, Russia remains a superpower, regardless of complacent western analyses of the weakness of her economy.

The third lesson is the fundamental divide—which we see in today’s debate—between those people in western societies who believe that wars result mainly from groundless mutual fear and suspicion, and those who believe that only the prospect of retaliation in kind prevents adventurist states from acting aggressively.

The fourth lesson is the validity of the hackneyed but nevertheless accurate concept of the silent majority. Although individual polling questions can be devised to produce apparent majorities against deploying particular nuclear systems, whenever the fundamental issue of deterrence has been posed the result is always decisive. Two thirds of the British people want us to continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them, and only one quarter want us to give them up unconditionally.

The final lesson is that since fewer than 10% of our people have been undecided in poll after poll on this fundamental issue, it does not make political sense to try to appease either that small group or the much larger number of highly committed unilateralists such as my friends in the Scottish National party. The strategic task for the Government, and for the Opposition, is to reinforce the views of the two thirds who believe in what may be termed peace through strength and deterrence, rather than peace through disarmament, so the issue will be in the forefront of people’s minds, as it was in the general elections of 1983 and 1987, when this was a very prominent topic in the election debate.

None of this would be possible but for the dedication and, indeed, heroism of those people who, month after month, patrol the seas and are not seen and not heard—they are meant to be not seen and not heard—in order silently to spread over us an umbrella of nuclear protection. Long may they continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

No, it would not. Indeed, the two arguments I am setting out, the second of which I am coming on to, are that there is no military or economic case for this. The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have said this to him before, that I am not going to get into an argument about morality with him because you never wrestle with chimney sweeps.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can the debate come through the Chair? I do not want it to get personalised.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am now going to come on to the economic case. It ought to be the case, for sure—and on this I am sure we do agree with others—that the Government carry out a threat analysis and, subsequent to that, get what they need to meet that threat and to keep people safe. But we do not believe, quite simply, that Trident complements that effort. The total cost of Trident, from design to through-life support, ran into many, many billions of pounds—estimated by some to be as high as £200 billion. We know for sure that the current renewal project is already woefully out of control. Indeed, over £1 billion of the £10 billion contingency that was set aside by the Ministry of Defence has already been tapped into, and of the extra £1 billion announced by the Chancellor, £400 million is exclusively for the nuclear renewal project. The most recent House of Commons Library figures tell us that the £2.2 billion per year spent on maintaining the deterrent is roughly equivalent to £42 million each week. That is about the same as we spend on income support, statutory maternity pay, carer’s allowance or winter fuel payments.

All that represents a drain on conventional defence, which has always been the priority of the SNP. This is at a time when the Department has enormous funding gaps in its equipment plan, estimated by the National Audit Office to be well over £10 billion, and big gaps in the funding of the defence estate, which is draining money as though it were going out of fashion. It is at a time when the Ministry of Defence continues with the bizarre fetish of privatising and outsourcing things that do not need to be privatised or outsourced: the defence fire and rescue service, the war pension scheme, the armed forces compensation scheme and even the medals office. Those things must remain in the hands of the MOD in their entirety. In the armed forces, it is not uncommon for serving members to have to buy substitute kit because the money is not there to get it through the Department’s budget.

Far from enhancing our national security and providing the necessary capability to keep us safe, Trident is a drain on conventional defence, particularly as the Government keep it as part of the overall defence budget, to the point that it diminishes our conventional defence and security posture, which is in need of proper investment and oversight.

To make one last point, it can be concluded that this country is now an irresponsible nuclear power. The timing of this debate could not be more breathtaking if the Government had tried. We sit here today to mark 50 years as a maritime nuclear power, but just last week the National Audit Office told us that hundreds of millions of pounds are being wasted by the Government on storing obsolete nuclear submarines and their utter failure to decommission them properly and responsibly. The independent NAO—this is not me—has said that it puts the UK’s reputation as a responsible nuclear power at risk.

The MOD has not decommissioned a single submarine successfully since 1980, twice as many are currently in storage as are in service, nine still contain radioactive fuel, seven have been in storage for longer than they were in service and no submarines have been defuelled in the last 15 years. It is a total failure, and the liability costs estimated by the Secretary of State’s own Department run to £7.5 billion. We can be sure, as night follows day, that that figure will get higher. The auditors said that the MOD did not have a fully developed plan to dispose of operational Vanguard and Astute submarines or its future Dreadnought-class vessels, which have different nuclear reactors.

Here the House sits with the iron-clad consensus that we must renew a nuclear submarine programme that the Government do not even have plans to decommission in the future, even though the National Audit Office has just outlined what a costly farce that has become. This cannot just be shrugged off as though it is business as usual. The public expect us to get to the bottom of it. I ask the Secretary of State—perhaps the Minister will say when he sums up—whether he will set up a public inquiry into the farce of nuclear submarine decommissioning.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that his colleague the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and I are working with the Department to make progress on this matter. Will he and the SNP support us because, despite their position, we need to find the line of credit for nuclear decommissioning, which is an enormous one across the board? Rather than bashing the Government on a question that is long and historic, will they help us to move forward and get the Treasury to support that decommissioning line?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Lady wants to catch my eye to speak. I do not want her to use up her speech just yet. I am bothered that, with 19 speakers, there will now be less than 10 minutes each.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The short answer to the hon. Lady’s question is yes. I will conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am conscious of the time.

There is nothing to celebrate here in 50 years as a maritime nuclear power. No doubt the rest of the debate will be wrapped up in British jingoism. I am not sure anything could convince the Conservatives to abandon the nuclear programme, but I am at a loss as to why the Leader of the Opposition allows his party to be locked into it. There were times when he would have spoken in this debate. He would have been on these Benches and, if there had been a Division, he would have been in the voting Lobby with us at the end of the debate. He would have found himself with Members of the Scottish National party. That he has abandoned that honourable principle and not even tried to move his party’s position on nuclear weapons remains a disappointment to millions and a mystery to me.

It is left to the Scottish National party to give voice to those who oppose the militarily and economically illiterate case that the Government have put forward, supported by Leader of the Opposition’s Front-Bench team. It is left to the Scottish National party to urge the Government to sign up to the nuclear ban treaty. It is left to us to make the case for sound conventional defence that protects us at home and ensures that we can do the job that needs to be done with our allies abroad. And it is left to us to say, with one voice in this House, let us please stop this madness.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

To help everybody to get in, can we use up to 10 minutes and no more?

Defence

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the debate today. I am pleased that the Minister chose to use this opportunity to lay out the challenge of transformation that our national defence faces in this era. I have been pleased to see the outline that the Ministry of Defence has given this in the modernising defence programme, following the doctrine of the need to mobilise, to modernise and to transform. I think we are reassured that this document—the modernising defence programme—is a clear statement of intent that takes us forward to the comprehensive spending review and really goes into battle for a strong national defence. I for one am right behind it, but the proof will be in the pudding when it comes to how much money is secured in the comprehensive spending review. If we want what the document describes as the Joint Force 2025—a maritime task group, a deployable land division with three brigades including a strike brigade, a properly resourced combat air group and a special forces task group—we will have to pay for it. We will also have to pay for the equipment programme, which involves some excellent new platforms but also has some significant financial holes. As I have said, the proof will be in the pudding.

As well as needing to pay for all this, there are other things that we will need to do if we are to make the vision in this document a reality. We must ensure value for money, and that is about ensuring that we use big data to make the management of our military much more efficient, especially in areas such as fleet management and the management of large numbers of people. We have to use big data in order to become more efficient, and we need to reform the way in which we do defence procurement. We also need to win the data war. We have heard from the Minister about the cyber threats that we face, and we need to up our game in that regard. We need to acknowledge that the world is connected in a way that it has never been connected before. That is not just a matter of defence; it is also a matter of offensive cyber.

We also need to adopt a global posture. The global deployments in Bahrain, in other middle eastern countries and around the world are a force multiplier, and I am proud that soldiers from my constituency are involved. The Scots Guards are deployed in Cyprus, the Grenadier Guards are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 4 Rifles—a specialised infantry battalion that is absolutely match fit and purpose built for engagements that involve the training of foreign troops—are deployed right around the world. They are a terrific force multiplier, and that is something we should be proud of.

Alarmingly, the document does not mention our defence response to China. That is a central challenge that we will have to grapple with in this new era of transformation. I invite the Minister to mention that in his closing remarks. Whether we like it or not—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Hopefully not, because it is not in the debate. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to carry on, but he must not drag the Minister into something that is not covered in the debate.

[Leo Docherty]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Moving on swiftly—we will also bring our allies with us. We are committed to NATO, but we need to demonstrate that commitment by exercising at scale. Perhaps we could do a “brigade plus” exercise in Poland to show resolve against threats on our eastern flank. We need to nurture sovereign industries, such as the ones in my constituency, which in turn nurture incredible defence innovation. We also need to get the legal framework right for foreign deployments. If we are to have a military that deploys with confidence to inflict violence on our behalf, soldiers need to be able to do that without fear of being pursued through the courts on their return.

I want to turn to the central argument in all of this. It is the argument, which we need to win, about hard power. The Minister mentioned this, and it is the central argument that we will be making as we move forward to the comprehensive spending review. We have been somewhat bruised by the past 18 years of the war on terror, which has informed this generation’s understanding of conflicts abroad, and it is easy to think that the public have a limited appetite for foreign intervention or foreign deployments. However, I actually believe that the reverse is true.

The British military conducted itself in Iraq and Afghanistan with such remarkable professionalism and courage that, whatever one thinks about the politics, there is wholehearted support among the British public and an acknowledgement that our armed forces can and will do a remarkable job on our behalf when deployed. There is absolutely no hesitation at all among the British public when it comes to supporting increased defence expenditure, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) noted. That argument is wrong, we need to debunk that myth, and we need a new commitment to a fully funded national defence in the comprehensive spending review. I look forward to making that argument in a clear, resolute and confident manner for the sake of a strong national defence in this great era of transformation.

RAF Centenary

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: a good idea is a good idea. It has been introduced with the genuine best of intentions, and I hope that the Government will see it in that spirit.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), mentioned the issue of funding, which also plays into the whole notion of whether a young person today would choose to sign up to the armed forces. If they were to spend any time at all looking into how the armed forces are funded—the pages of The Times newspaper are usually where someone can read all about this—it would cause them some concern. SNP Members have offered to the Secretary of State and his team of Ministers to try to get to a sustainable level of funding for the MOD, because that is clearly not there now. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports that show that the affordability gap in the equipment plan has got worse, not better—indeed, the best-case scenario has got worse by around £3 billion.

We can really only hold our fingers in our ears about this issue for a certain amount of time. Again, we have brought forward another good idea. Indeed, the former Minister, whose constituency has gone right out of my head, but who chose to resign from the MOD over the Brexit issue, said that he would consider our proposal of multi-year defence agreements to try to bring some sustainability to how the armed forces, such as the RAF, can be funded. Again, this is an entirely normal practice in other NATO member states and in other European countries. It helps to take the heat out of how defence is funded—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) shouts that the Minister was the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). The proposal could help to take the heat out of some of that discussion and put some proper weight behind what the MOD want to achieve.

In that context of what the MOD wants to achieve, what is the role of the armed forces, and what is the role of the RAF to be? We thought we would all see that in the modernising defence programme, a programme that is now so steeped in controversy that I am not sure whether anyone will be able to take it seriously when it is published. We were supposed to see something earlier this year that would be linked with cyber-security and cyber-defence, but that was hived off in about April, which I think was a sensible decision.

The Government then promised to produce the programme before the summer recess, but instead the House was treated to—I think—four or five paragraphs in a written statement on the day the House rose for the recess. My nephew could have written that in a couple of hours, and he only started high school this year. It is really not on. If I were in the armed forces, looking on, I would be thinking, “What on earth is going on at Government level to ensure that we have the necessary equipment and funds so that we can continue to have the fine armed forces that we deserve?” When will the modernising defence programme be published so that the House can consider it?

I said earlier that creating the Royal Air Force was a tremendous act of foresight by Parliament. I think that we now need to revisit these questions: what is the modern Royal Air Force set to achieve for the United Kingdom and its allies, and what is its role to be in a changing threat picture involving kinetic and hybrid threats? I accept that we cannot give any serious answers in the time that remains this evening—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

There is plenty of time.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I do not want to prevent others from showing their worth, Mr Deputy Speaker.

That is the level to which Parliament needs to take this debate. I think that Parliament is up for it; I just hope that the Government are as well.

Armed Forces Covenant

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have been informed that the Prime Minister is to make a statement to this House at 3 o’clock. However, I understand that the Prime Minister has already spoken to the press outside No. 10 Downing Street. I consider that to be a gross discourtesy to this House.

Secondly, I understand that an agreement has been reached between the Prime Minister and the European Union on a draft declaration. I would have thought that that draft declaration would be available to this House, but as of 10 minutes ago it is not available in the Table Office. Will you ensure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that draft declaration is made available well before the Prime Minister gets to her feet at 3 o’clock?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is good practice to share such information and there is still time. If Her Majesty’s Opposition have got to listen to a statement they should be well informed in order to be able to put the right questions. I also say that this House should be told first, not the TV studios; Members of Parliament are here to be told first, not everyone else. We know that that is best practice and it should be the practice: whoever they are, they should come to this House first, and then by all means go to the TV studios. The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record, and I hope that anything that needs to be printed and produced will be ready for the 3 o’clock statement. We do have time, and I am sure that message has gone out loud and clear, and I am sure the Whips will be dealing with it very quickly.

[Mr Ellwood]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I confirm that, in coming to the House and presenting the ninth annual armed forces covenant report, I did not go to the media beforehand, but came here first?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is the best practice, and I am sure you will advise the Prime Minister on how to take it forward in the future. What a great Minister you are.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

On a point of order, The outworking of the statement that we are due to hear at 3 o’clock this afternoon is, I imagine, that this important consideration of our armed forces covenant will be curtailed. Can you confirm whether the intention is to have the winding-up speeches in this debate before the Prime Minister’s statement, or do you envisage its proceeding beyond the point of interruption? What are the plans for full consideration of the covenant statement?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In fairness, that is also in the hands of Members such as your good self, who have put in to speak. They can help the House to finish this debate ready for the statement. I am sure that the Whips will work closely to ensure that that happens. Looking at the time, I am sure that everything will come on time, as predicted and as, I would say, now planned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

And so say all of us. I hope the Whips are listening and act accordingly—[Interruption.] Even at this moment, I see messages being passed urgently. Could this be some good news? I would happily give way if it is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Another resignation?

[Dr Lewis]

Heaven forbid.

Other matters deserved equal attention today. We have heard about the legal hounding of Northern Ireland veterans and other veterans of different campaigns; that is an ongoing matter. Also, at some point it would be right for the House to consider the Home Office’s failure to allocate sufficient British passports to veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Royal Navy. That injustice needs to be rectified. However, as I said, in the time available to me today I will concentrate on war widows, and I will do so slightly unusually—in their own words.

First, I remind the House of the terms of the covenant itself, which the Minister read out. The words relevant to my remarks are the following:

“the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families… Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.”

Back in May, I had the pleasure of meeting Judith Thompson, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. We discussed the plight of 200 to 300 war widows who lost their war widow’s pension and did not have it reinstated when others were more fortunate.

I see the hon. Member for Bridgend has just taken her place. Sadly, she missed the tribute paid to her achievement in becoming president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, but she is here to hear me reiterate it. I hope she will contribute to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. Of all 650 Members of this House, he knows better than anyone, in personal terms, the devastation these killings left behind. That is why I intend to read out several more extracts before concluding. Mr Deputy Speaker, please indicate if you feel I am going on too long.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Whip is there.

[Dr Lewis]

Okay, I will do my best. I do not intend to elaborate over and above the words, which speak for themselves.

Muriel, the widow of Jimmy, writes:

“My husband was 40 years old when he was murdered and I was left a widow at 37 with 5 children. Jimmy gave his life in defence of this country and I believe I should have the recognition that I am a war widow. It should make no difference that he died in 1977 and not on another date that the government has decided qualifies widows for pensions.

My husband was murdered because he put on a uniform and tried to uphold law and order. He died in his own home when gunmen shot him at our front door. I have had to live with the horror of this and our family has suffered terribly but instead of feeling that the government recognises our sacrifice we feel betrayed and that we are a nuisance asking for money the government says it can’t afford. I felt I had done something wrong when I remarried and tried to rebuild my life, as if everything that I went through meant nothing.

I don’t even get a full state pension because I paid married woman’s national insurance and I often think I should have been better advised by the MoD who should have given more priority to my welfare. I am a war widow and should be acknowledged as such and the government must do the decent thing and reinstate the pension for those of us whose lives were destroyed so that democracy could flourish.”

Now I come to a daughter, Elizabeth, who says:

“I am disappointed and saddened that I am even writing this… My Father”—

John—

“was a member of the UDR and he was shot dead when aged 40 years in 1981 doing his civilian job.”

I will not go through the events that happened, but Elizabeth continues:

“Each Remembrance Day and on my Dad’s anniversary, we remember him with pride. The impact of my Dad’s murder was severe, my Mum was left to bring up 3 children, I was aged 11 years. This was very difficult for my Mum both financially and emotionally. We all as a family still struggle today.

When she remarried her war pension was taken away from her. This is an absolute disgrace. We as children were still orphaned. It is a struggle for my Mum. She has no financial security in her later years and she can’t help her family the way she would like to. My Dad would be extremely saddened at the way the MoD have treated us.”

That is the very point made a few moments ago by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Elizabeth continues:

“I would also like to add that the aftercare is a disgrace as there actually isn’t any aftercare. When I enquired at the MoD about the pension being reinstated I was told no but if my Mum divorced her husband and then remarried him again she would get it back. How morally wrong is this? It is ridiculous that she is being penalised because of when my Father was murdered and for when she remarried. The pension should be reinstated and a full apology given for the way my Mum and other widows have been treated.”

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I may have misunderstood—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Minister will have to sit down.

[Mr Ellwood]

I was just grabbing some water.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I don’t care what the Minister thinks he is doing; I am just telling him what he has to do.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I may have misunderstood the Minister, and I know it is not the custom to ask a question to which one does not know the answer, but I think he said that royal naval ships were confined to aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers. Would that not also apply to any replacement amphibious craft that we might need?[Official Report, 24 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 8MC.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the Minister was adamant that there had been a British bid for the MARS tanker contract. That was not the case, and I wonder whether he would like to correct the record.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Do you wish to speak, Minister?

[Mr Ellwood]

Because of the mechanics of the Defence Committee, I, rather than the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), stepped forward to open this debate. However, defence procurement is his brief, and it would make more sense for him to give a comprehensive reply on this very subject as he is concluding this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The matter is now on the record for it to be picked up—[Interruption.] Hot potatoes!

I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division, which was subject to a double majority vote under Standing Order No. 83Q, in respect of the Question relating to the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order. The Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 211. In respect of the same Question among those Members from qualifying constituencies in England and Wales, the Ayes were 282 and the Noes were 201, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I will have to introduce a seven-minute limit on speeches. I call Kevin Foster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was customary in a wind-up to reply to the debate. I am sorry, but Big Ben has not been mentioned this afternoon. The many defence workers who lobbied Parliament yesterday on this contract expect us to respond to this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is part of it, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is leading on to the debate that we have had.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am leading on to that issue. It is a debate not only about the ships in question, but about wider manufacturing procurement strategy.

Given the severity of the crisis facing British steel, this is simply shocking. The Government need to take a long-term approach to procurement, appreciating the wider economic and societal benefits of their decisions, rather than simply driving down the upfront costs. The Minister said that this is what the shipbuilding strategy states, but what I have read so far in the strategy is extremely ambiguous, and there is no detail as to how these wider socio-economic benefits are measured or quantified. Perhaps the Minister can respond to that point in his summing up. It would also be helpful to have confirmation that reports that a deal worth £2.5 billion in relation to the AWACS—airborne warning and control system—contract has been awarded to Boeing with no UK content.

Our motion recognises the wider socioeconomic benefits of procuring wisely. We have sought to place the fleet solid support ship order with domestic shipyards, creating or securing 6,500 jobs, including 1,805 shipyard jobs, which are highly skilled and 45% better paid than the average for all jobs. It would also mean that £285 million of the estimated cost of the order could be returned to the Exchequer through taxes. Many people across Britain clearly see it as right, moral and economically sound to take this course of action. The Government have a duty to use their enormous spending power to support British industry and its workers. Tonight, football’s coming home; we need a commitment from the Government that the same will happen to British manufacturing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I think that we have had 12 passionate speeches on this matter. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

Although we all agree about the importance of the future of our shipbuilding sector, there is clearly a differential between my views and those of the Ministry of Defence, and the views of many Opposition Members. However, I am willing to recognise completely openly the commitment of those who have spoken in this debate to our defence sector, the defence industry and jobs within that industry.

Before I go on to my detailed notes, I want quickly to say two things. I have been asked to be short in my response because of a football match that is going on this evening—although, as a Welshman, I am quite happy to miss kick-off.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I assure the Minister that the rest of us are not—come on!

[Guto Bebb]

I just want to place on the record a clarification of the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). He was correct in saying that UK companies were involved in the MARS tanker competition and procurement process, but Opposition Members are also correct in saying that there was no British company involved in a final bid. I hope that that clarifies the point of order made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).

I welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State has brought this debate forward. The comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) were also very interesting, and there is no doubt that the team from Glasgow have very much argued the case for their city on this issue. I also welcome the speeches made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who made an important speech highlighting the fact that we have to understand the context in which these decisions are being made.

The truth of the matter is that we did recommend a shipbuilding strategy and we commissioned a report from Sir John Parker. We have accepted all the recommendations of that report, and it is important to highlight that we have done that in full. The crux of this issue and of this debate may come down to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I thank him for his kind words. He said quite clearly that he had no problem whatever in companies based in the United Kingdom that are not owned or held in the United Kingdom competing for these contracts. That goes to the crux of some concerns that Government Members have about this motion, because it says very clearly that that contract should be offered only to “UK-only competition”. There is no definition of what that means, so the right hon. Member for Warley was probably discontented with the Opposition motion.

It is very clear that the Government are fully committed to supporting our defence sector. The shipbuilding strategy was not developed in order to avoid our support for the shipbuilding sector. The whole point was to ensure that we did support, in a coherent manner, a shipbuilding sector that would be competitive on an international basis, that would be able to retain the skills about which hon. Members have spoken so passionately, and that would allow the qualities of our shipbuilding sector to be understood and appreciated on a worldwide basis.

The Australian Government’s order of the Type 26 frigates in the SEA 5000 competition is an acknowledgment of the design skills that we have on the Clyde. It is also an acknowledgment of the confidence that the United Kingdom has in saying very clearly that we want to compete on an international basis and to offer our products on an international basis, and that we want to do so with a degree of confidence. We do not believe that the way forward for our shipbuilding sector is simply to say that every single vessel has to be built in the United Kingdom, because we are more ambitious for our shipyards. We want to see our shipyards winning contracts on an international basis.

I want to correct something. When I first stood at this Dispatch Box as a Defence Minister, I was told by the right hon. Member for North Durham that we had not sold a warship design in 40 years, so what made me think that we would start now? Well, we have. That is an indication of the fact that our strategy is working. It is working because we have confidence in our shipbuilding sector.

NATO

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am reducing the speaking limit to five minutes, so that everyone will be treated equally and everyone will have a chance to speak.

Ministry of Defence

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us have the hon. and gallant Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).

Armed Forces Pay

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

Where will the money come from? We will call for extra contributions of up to 5% from large corporations and we will demand that the super-rich pay a little bit more, instead of enjoying the largesse that the Government have given them. I am not hopeful that that will happen, however, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State and his friends—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the shadow Minister to give way, or not. My understanding is that there was no giving way earlier, so if there is tit for tat, that is up to each individual; it is not for the Chair. What I do not want is this continuous barracking across the Chamber, with Members saying, “He is not giving way” and, “Will he give way?”. [Interruption.] Order. There are no more contributions, are there? Wayne David, please.

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the chuntering and the interruptions are indicative of the crass behaviour of the Ministry of Defence, which we are debating this afternoon.

I am not hopeful that Ministers will stand up for the armed forces, which they claim to support, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State for Defence is considering scrapping the special allowance given to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will the Minister, in his response—I will give him time to respond—make a commitment not to cut the special service allowance?

As we approach Remembrance Sunday—several Members mentioned it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones)—it is surely imperative that the House unites in support of our armed forces. This afternoon, many contributions have strongly supported lifting the pay cap. I very much hope that all of us will support the motion, and call for a fair pay rise for our armed forces. Especially at this time of the year, our armed forces deserve nothing less. [Interruption.]

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Minister should sit down for a second.

Mr Lancaster, I do not know whether you are deliberately trying to frustrate the Chair—I am sure that is not your intention—but you are going a good way towards doing so. Let me help you. It is up to the Opposition spokesman when he sits down. The Minister has asked for extra time to respond, so you should be thanking Mr David for sitting down to give him that extra time. Let us have less chuntering, and let us hear from Minister Ellwood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Look at the National Audit Office report of 2010. What it said on the equipment budget, not the overall budget, was that on its current basis the figure would be £6 billion. If there was no increase in line with inflation over a 10-year period, the figure would be £36 billion, not £38 billion—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First, if the Minister takes the intervention both Members cannot be on their feet and he cannot suddenly say, “I don’t want to hear any more of it.” In fairness, if he gives way he needs to let the intervention get to the end. If I think the intervention is too long, let me take that decision. Let us not have both Members on their feet.

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I make it clear that the facts are very clear. Look at any—

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Look what you’ve done now. You’ve got a point of order: Kevan Jones.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Hang on. The Minister has been here long enough; you know you have got to sit down. Please, let us follow the rules of engagement. As ex-Army personnel, you are very good at that. Kevan Jones.

[Mr Jones]

It is a serious point of order. The right hon. Gentleman gave way to me, and then he stood up when I had not finished. But the serious point is that what he is saying is not true—not the facts—and as a Minister, he should not be actually saying that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Whoa! Nobody would mislead the House with an untruth.

[Sir Mike Penning]

Withdraw!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sir Mike Penning, thank you. Your knighthood goes before us. [Interruption.] Order. Now, we know that that is not the parliamentary way. I am sure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) does not mean it in the sense in which it was given.

[Mr Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. All I am saying is that accurate information must be given. If the Minister looks at the NAO report from 2010, he will see the actual figure, instead of the bluster which he keeps—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Okay. I will accept “accuracy” but not “truth”. Minister.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure whether I should sit down or stand up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

No, I tell you what: you’ll sit down. If we are going to play the game, we will start playing it. Now then, Minister: on your feet.

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a huge amount of respect for the work that the hon. Gentleman did, and continues to do, in supporting our armed forces, but the numbers are clear. The growth of the deficit since 2000, moving forward, increased, increased and increased; and that is the black hole that I was actually referring to.

I think we have milked this subject enough for the moment, so I will move on. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) spoke about the importance of the covenant. She is in her place. I thank her for the work that she does on this important matter and I would like to meet the Committee at the earliest opportunity.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) spoke of the package of financial support, which is very important. I have touched on that. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said that the reserve numbers are increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) spoke with passion about his constituency. It was a pleasure to visit the event to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Falklands campaign. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) spoke about the importance of the Royal British Legion. I am really pleased that the Office for National Statistics has agreed to include a tick—a requirement—for veterans and I am pleased that everyone has worked towards that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about the importance of the equipment that we have—£178 billion is being spent on that. He also said that the total cost of the promises that Labour has made so far under this Government is £500 billion. I do not know where that money will come from.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) spoke about cats and traps. I want to make it clear that the electromagnetic aircraft launch system—EMALS—was being promoted. That simply had not matured in time. There was no way that we were going to buy F-35Cs for the aircraft carrier; they could not have been launched off it because there is no steam.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Now you will have to sit down again, Minister, but don’t worry: I will bring you back up. Wayne David.

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is being economical with the truth. But what is absolutely outrageous is that the subject under consideration is pay rises for the armed forces, but Ministers have hardly referred to it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think people will deliver figures in different ways, and the interpretation of those will always be in dispute. Minister.

[Mr Ellwood]

I was just going to mention the animation—the passion—of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who has done a service to the House with his work to promote the needs and requirements of veterans. I hope that continues.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made an interesting and measured contribution. He was the first to point out that what we need to do is to ask the question, “What do we want our armed forces to do?” Only by asking that question will we determine the size and the equipment we need, and that is why we are undertaking our capability review.

The hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) spoke with passion about Remembrance Sunday and the poppy appeal. It was a real honour to visit the Poppy Factory a few months ago to see the work that it is doing with veterans, and the work for Remembrance Sunday itself.

In conclusion, like all Members of the House, the Government want to ensure that our brave armed forces, those exemplary men and women who give their all for our country, continue to get what they deserve. Our forces are currently serving in 25[Official Report, 20 November 2017, Vol. 631, c. 4MC.] operations around the world. They are keeping us safe and enhancing our reputation around the world. They are the best of British, and they have the right to expect the best in return. Therefore, although the need for pay discipline will remain a constant in the coming years, we remain committed to ensuring that their overall package of pay, progression and benefits continues to reflect the enormous value that we place on their work. We await the next review’s findings with interest. Members can rest assured that, as a Defence Minister, a former officer and a reservist, I am determined to do everything in my power to ensure that our people get what they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the pay of Armed Forces personnel has been capped at 1 per cent in 2017-18 and that this represents another below inflation pay settlement; further notes that the size of the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy and Royal Marines is below stated targets; notes that dissatisfaction with pay has been identified by service personnel as a reason for leaving their respective force; and calls on the Government to end the public sector pay cap for the Armed Forces and give Armed Forces personnel a fair pay rise.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am apologetic for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I was waiting for him to take a natural pause, but one did not appear. Am I right in saying that there is a convention in this House that speakers should remain in their place for two speeches before they leave? The Secretary of State has left after only one speech, and the Chair of the Defence Committee is speaking. Have you been notified of any reason why the Secretary of State has had to leave so soon, when many of us would have expected him to want to know what was being said?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Secretary of State went at such speed that he did not even say goodnight or anything, so I am not sure why; he may well be coming back. He may have been taken short, given the speed he went at. It is convention that Members normally hear at least two speeches, and it is normal for Ministers to stay around to hear a bit more. Of course, when we have such a learned Member as the Chair of the Select Committee, we all wish to hear him. I had better bring him back on.

[Dr Lewis]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I must say in defence of the Defence Secretary that he spent no fewer than two hours and 25 minutes before our Committee last Wednesday afternoon, and I felt that was—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is no reason for him not to be here—let us put that on the record now.

[Dr Lewis]

But I did feel it was somewhat beyond the call of duty, and I believe that the whole Committee appreciated it.

My fourth question is: will this new system send a positive or a negative signal—first, to recruits and, secondly, to potential adversaries? That is where the controversy arose in the upper House, as grave concern was expressed about the Bill’s repeated use of the terminology of “part-time service”. To give a brief example of the dangers of the use of such terminology, I take a moment to refer to the lyrics of a “Glee Club” song composed by Liberal Democrat activists at their 2014 conference, sending up their party’s policy of sending nuclear submarines to sea either without warheads—we appear to be without Liberal Democrats, too—or only for part of the time. I will not sing it, the House will be glad to hear. [Hon. Members: “Do!”] It is done to the tune of “Yellow Submarine” and, talking of the boats, one of my favourite verses goes, “We can send them back to base if we’re really up the creek and request the war’s postponed until the middle of next week.” The chorus then is, “We believe in a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine, a part-time submarine,” and so on. Members can, thus, see the potential for the use of “part-time” in relation to armed forces to allow our adversaries and our critics in the media to suggest there is something less professional and less committed about the way in which we are conducting ourselves. Lord Craig of Radley, former Chief of the Air Staff, did suggest an alternative wording, which I hope might still be considered in Committee.

My final question is: will it be possible to apply to go on so-called part-time service just in time to avoid an operational deployment? The answer to the first question about emergency service clearly covers the issue of whether someone about to be deployed to a war zone could use this scheme to get out of it—clearly, they could not—but I would like a little more clarification from Ministers on whether there is any risk that some people might see a less popular deployment looming up on the near horizon and decide that the time was appropriate to start thinking about applying not for so-called part-time service but for a change, a reduction or an alternative to full-deployment just at that point.

Subject to those caveats, I wish the Bill well. I look forward to hearing further elaboration on the points I have raised, perhaps in the closing speech from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who I believe will be summing up. I endorse the commendation of both Front Benchers for this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am slightly bemused. Can you confirm whether we have until the moment of interruption for the Minister to continue his remarks?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but there are 33 minutes to go.

[Mr Ellwood]

As I said, without exception, all Members from across the House came to support the people in our armed forces today.

For centuries and across continents, our armed forces have been respected—indeed, revered—for their grit, tenacity and courage. When we define who we are as a nation—our standards, our values, our tolerance, our interests and our aspirations—they are neatly interwoven with the reputation of our armed forces and the role that they play on the nation’s behalf.